Throw-In/Inadvertent Whistle

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

This is apparently another one of those, "Do as we want, not as we say" situations. By rule, you are 100% correct. But the NFHS has said that they don't want team control to apply to anything except common fouls by the throw-in team.

I will refrain from any negative commentary.

Scrapper:

I understand why you are saying what you are saying, but the NFHS wanted to bring its definition inline with the NCAA's definition and the NFHS did a terrible job of it.

I do not believe that one can say that team control ends when the throw-in ends in the play being discussed whether the game is played under NCAA or NFHS rules. The definition of TC is the same for both rules sets.

In the play being discussed, Team A has control of the ball at the time of the IW. Thw IW cassed the ball to go from Live Ball to Dead Ball. Therefore Team A get possession of the ball for a throw-in nearest the spot of the ball at the time of the IW. There is no TC from the time of the IW until the ball is at the disposal for Team A's throw-in at which the ball is both in PC of the Thrower and in TC of Team A.

The NFHS can say that TC ended when the throw-in ended but there is nothing, nada, now way Jose, can then position be defended by rule.

MTD, Sr.

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Scrapper:

........... but the NFHS wanted to bring its definition inline with the NCAA's definition and the NFHS did a terrible job of it.

And therein lies the problem. That said, I agree with Mark that by rule team control doesn't end when the ball is tipped by the opponent. There is nothing in the NFHS changes and subsequent "clarifications" that says team control on the throw in ends when the ball is legally touched inbounds. What a can of worms! Next chance I get I'll ask our SRI, & whatever he says is what I'll go by.

[Camron Rust]

The only thing the NFHS has clearly stated about this new rule is that ALL situations other than fouls should end up the same as they would have before the change.

Thus, there is no team control when the whistle blows. Go to the arrow.

NCAA....not certain. But, I don't believe they've made such a statement....so ball back to A.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

But what's the NCAA ruling?

Sorry. I completely missed that the question was about NCAA rules. We've been dealing with this exact rule (team control during throw-in) in regards to the NFHS rule, that I just assumed that's what we were talking about. My apologies.

In the original situation, MOofficial was correct. Since there is team control during the throw-in, the POI for the inadvertent whistle is a throw-in to the team in control. That's Team A. No arrow necessary.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The only thing the NFHS has clearly stated about this new rule is that ALL situations other than fouls should end up the same as they would have before the change.

Thus, there is no team control when the whistle blows. Go to the arrow.

This is exactly what I was talking about. We talked about this exact play in a recent thread. I'll go find it and post it for reference.

[Scrapper1]

Here's the thread:

Another problem with the new backcourt rule?

And here's post #54. If Camron and Nevada both agree that's the rule, I'm inclined to believe it:

http://forum.officiating.com/798645-post54.html

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The only thing the NFHS has clearly stated about this new rule is that ALL situations other than fouls should end up the same as they would have before the change.

Where have they clearly stated this?

My rule book says that team control does not end until a shot is taken, he defense gains possession, or the ball becomes dead.

It does not say team control ends when the throw-in ends.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Where have they clearly stated this?

My rule book says that team control does not end until a shot is taken, he defense gains possession, or the ball becomes dead.

It does not say team control ends when the throw-in ends.

The NFHS PowerPoint presentation on rules changes.

"The rule change adding team control during a throw in only affects the administration of fouls committed during the throw in. It has no affect on existing frontcourt-backcourt, three seconds, or traveling/dribbling violations."

See also the following interpretation...

SITUATION 5: A1 has the ball for an end-line throw-in in his/her frontcourt. A1’s pass to A2, who is in the frontcourt standing near the division line, is high and deflects off A2’s hand and goes into Team A’s backcourt. A2 is then the first to control the ball in Team A’s backcourt.

RULING: Legal. There is no backcourt violation since player and team control had not yet been established in Team A’s frontcourt before the ball went into Team A’s backcourt. The throw-in ends when A2 legally touches the ball, but the backcourt count does not start until A2 gains control in his/her backcourt. (4-12-2d; 9-9)

Without stating it so explicitly, they've created two different team controls. One begins when the throwin begins and is used ONLY to determine the type of foul. The other begins as it did before when a player inbound holds or dribbles the ball....and is used with regard to all non-foul situations.

[just another ref]

On a related subject, does the thrower-in now have player control or not? I can't think of a reason why it matters, but it was a question on our study guide.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

On a related subject, does the thrower-in now have player control or not? I can't think of a reason why it matters, but it was a question on our study guide.

Yes. They subtly changed the definition of player control to match the new definition of team control -- it includes the player throwing the ball in.

[Scuba_ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

RULING: Legal. There is no backcourt violation since player and team control had not yet been established in Team A’s frontcourt before the ball went into Team A’s backcourt.

Another way to interpret this is that it isn't a violation because both player control and team control have not yet been established. In the example team control has been established by rule but player control has not. I don't believe that the language used is specifically stating that there isn't team control, simply that there isn't both team and player control.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scuba_ref

Another way to interpret this is that it isn't a violation because both player control and team control have not yet been established. In the example team control has been established by rule but player control has not. I don't believe that the language used is specifically stating that there isn't team control, simply that there isn't both team and player control.

Player control has, in fact, been established.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Scuba_ref

Another way to interpret this is that it isn't a violation because both player control and team control have not yet been established. In the example team control has been established by rule but player control has not. I don't believe that the language used is specifically stating that there isn't team control, simply that there isn't both team and player control.

Except the thrower-in has player control. Look at the differences in the definition between last year and this year. That isn't accidental.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The NFHS PowerPoint presentation on rules changes.

"The rule change adding team control during a throw in only affects the administration of fouls committed during the throw in. It has no affect on existing frontcourt-backcourt, three seconds, or traveling/dribbling violations."

See also the following interpretation...

SITUATION 5: A1 has the ball for an end-line throw-in in his/her frontcourt. A1’s pass to A2, who is in the frontcourt standing near the division line, is high and deflects off A2’s hand and goes into Team A’s backcourt. A2 is then the first to control the ball in Team A’s backcourt.

RULING: Legal. There is no backcourt violation since player and team control had not yet been established in Team A’s frontcourt before the ball went into Team A’s backcourt. The throw-in ends when A2 legally touches the ball, but the backcourt count does not start until A2 gains control in his/her backcourt. (4-12-2d; 9-9)

Without stating it so explicitly, they've created two different team controls. One begins when the throwin begins and is used ONLY to determine the type of foul. The other begins as it did before when a player inbound holds or dribbles the ball....and is used with regard to all non-foul situations.

Is there a specific scenario written that explicitly says that we aren't going to consider team control in the situation where B1 deflects the basketball and there's an IW?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Is there a specific scenario written that explicitly says that we aren't going to consider team control in the situation where B1 deflects the basketball and there's an IW?

Why would it matter? They've already said the rule change affects nothing more than fouls and they have a case that essentially backs that up by saying there is no team control after a throwin was deflected inbounds....because no inbounds player had control yet. Why would an inadvertent whistle create team control when it didn't exist to start with according to the above case.